To wonder what Teresa May's plans for secondary moderns are

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

That's it really.
I am a bit disappointed with her tbh.

(The other 4 are grammars)

So, the already lucky and top of the tree clever kids need loads of help to get their As to A*.

The also rans, who desperately need a C? Oh, well, they can resit.

My DD goes to a comp which Ofsted has said is very good for High Achievers so I asked her if she considered it a good place to be clever. She is probably in top 25% but not one of what she calls "the really clever girls"

Summing up of the answers:

1.The very top girls get lots of mentoring and challenge from the sixth formers. Says she will ask her friend E if this is helpful.

1. Clever girls never bullied but do get asked questions by other kids. [This is either unnecessary distraction or a chance to gain a valuable life skill depending on your point of view]

3.All lessons have bronze, silver and gold challenges so you always have something hard to do.

From my point of view the teachers seem very pro-active about getting the best out of them all. For instance, her History teacher has deliberately put her and E together because she says she knows they will always challenge each other. The school also puts a massive effort into "character development" in Year 7 - this gives every child a chance to be rewarded and praised -seems to give them all a pride in the school.

And I happen to think this is easier to achieve when you haven't labelled the kids first.

Of course clever kids need less teacher time! How can anyone disagree with that?

As I have said before, I can absolutely understand why current grammar parents want to keep the privilege that their own children are enjoying, and will prioritise their needs - it's a basic human instinct, to focus on one's own.

I do find it hard that they choose not to see at all how the benefit to them might have a disbenefit to others.

Everyone should have the help and support they need of course. Neither is more or less deserving. A genuine question though are the teaching skills needed for the 2 groups the same ? I would have thought not although noble clearly does both well. Does it not make sense to specialise in one or the other ?

Bert i have already answered that point. I dont think thats true.

Bert I'm trying but failing to find your nuances. Please can you indicate where exactly they are and I'll have a re-read?

Still some teachers are capable of teaching all levels of ability but it's absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt that plenty are not capable of properly challenging the most able DCs in a good grammar school. In other words they can teach down, but there's a limit to how far up they can teach. And that's a problem for the most able.

Goodbyestranger- I am aware that it is bad form to reference previous threads, but you have what is known in the vernacular as a fucking nerve.

Incidentally grammars have the same recruitment problems especially in the shortage areas but the problem is compounded by the need to find teachers capable of teaching to the highest ability groups.

I suppose another way to look at this is, which institution - comprehensive or secondary modern - does most to improve the attainment and life chances of those who might otherwise become disengaged / economically inactive / at worst criminal? As in, FOR SOCIETY ASS A WHOLE, is it worth focusing on what 'avoids the greatest problems for society'?

Do we have any measures for that in different systems in comparable counties?

Oops, as a whole.

Bert I don;t have the foggiest what you're on about now. You mentioned nuances and I'm trying to find them. What on earth has that to do with previous threads .

Anyhow, please tell me where your nuances are?

Goodbye, I know that you work in / are associated with education (a grammar school?) in some capacity. Do you really have such a poor view of most of your colleagues?

Incidentally grammars have the same recruitment problems especially in the shortage areas

No, no they really don't.

I disagree utterly that clever DC should have less teacher time. An able teacher needs to differentiate and provide equally for the least and most able in a classroom, otherwise they're a poor teacher.

Still, I teach particular (extremely frivolous) skill to groups of varying abilities. I will show them how to do something. Some will get it at once, so I will tell them to take th selves off and practice and if they like have a go at the next bit while I carry on with the ones who haven't got it yet. They can come back to me if they need to, but if they don't, that'/ brilliant.

This is exactly the approach that my ds's teachers are taking with him at the moment. He is likely to do better than anyone else in his school in his GCSEs. I see no reason why the teachers should hover over him- they are ready and willing to help if he needs it, and they keep him on track, but at this stage it's pretty much down to him.

Yes, yes they really do have very significant problems noble.

I agree that within teaching there are some who are more specialist - a friend (Maths teacher, comp, Cambridge mathematician) finds lower groups very hard indeed to teach, and her colleague (specialised in SEN, also a Maths graduate), finds lower groups easier to teach. However there are, IME and IMO, a vast majority who teach a wide range of abilities well, though they may have a personal preference or specific strength.

Goodbye:

• No suitably qualified teachers have been employed by, or have applied to, that school, for several years-type problems, goodbye, or
• Might prefer a wider field of candidates, but mostly we manage to fill vacancies after advertising once or twice-type problems?

Bertrand you really can't compare teaching an extra curricular as an amateur volunteer to teaching academic subjects to a decidedly mixed ability group - give the teaching profession some credit.

Neither is more or less deserving.

Which is a problem when resources are scarce and splitting the two groups into different schools means that one group is allocated the better teacher than the other.

A genuine question though are the teaching skills needed for the 2 groups the same?

It's hard to pin down exactly, certainly the lower group needs more input (as Bertrand says), as the top set tend to be more resilient as they have an arsenal of skills they can employ when faced with questions they can't immediately do. I think both groups need clever teachers who are good at maths and who can break maths down to be understood. That the maths for one group is easier than the other is rather irrelevant as it is hard for those pupils.

It depends on the subject can't.

Please don't address any remarks directly to me, goodbyestranger. You have called me, among a huge list of other things, arrogant, "creepy" and a liar. I have no intention of engaging with you.

Sorry, everyone else, it had to be said. As you were.